From: Robin Hanson (hanson@econ.berkeley.edu)
Date: Mon Sep 21 1998 - 17:13:45 MDT
Greg Burch writes:
>Isn't the problem that a key term in all of these discussions, "intelligence"
>(appearing in such other key terms as "human equivalence", "augmentation",
>etc.), is simply not well understood at this point? ...
>until this essential factor is more subject to
>quantification, I doubt that analysis of the rigor you are seeking, Robin, is
>possible. That doesn't make the discussion pointless, it just makes it less
>precise than we might like.
I actually don't think that the stumbling point is defining intelligence.
I think we have lots of reasonable ways to make that concept more precise.
And we know a lot about how intelligence is helps make the economy grow, and
technology improve. Perhaps the problem is that those who have intuitions
suggesting singularity haven't tried to express those intuitions
more precisely in terms of the available more precise concepts of intelligence,
and in terms of what we know about how intelligence helps change technology
Robin Hanson
hanson@econ.berkeley.edu http://hanson.berkeley.edu/
RWJF Health Policy Scholar, Sch. of Public Health 510-643-1884
140 Warren Hall, UC Berkeley, CA 94720-7360 FAX: 510-643-8614
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:35 MST